You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

re Chris Miller:Doesn't paragraph 2 of law 25A contradict paragraph 1? More specifically, the last sentence of para 2: “A change of call may be allowed … but not because of loss of concentration”. Yet, read and interpret the first line of para 1.If paragraph 2 is intended to clarify what para 1 says then my interpretation is that a slip of the tongue is allowed while a lapse in concentration is not. But the slip comes from a momentary lapse… does it not? When asked, I can always say it was like a slip of the tongue instead of saying I was absent-minded.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

In my terminology, Romex is a two-segment system where the cut-off point is at 18 HCP. The artificial and forcing 1NT starts at 18. The third segment is 22+. That is outside the range I was looking at. It is the interval 10 to 21 that I wished to see divided into three. Same comment applies to Breakthrough (above).

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Thank you for your feedback. I just happen to prefer the “intermediate 2M openings” to weak twos. Note that in my system, with a minimum opening hand with a 5-card major xxxxx, one does not have to open 2M. Instead, open 1M pretending to have a 4-card major.At any rate, one does not need the 2M openings in a three-tier system. See Benoit Lessard and Ronald Kalf upthread. It's because I like them that I included them.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Very close to my system, except with the roles of 1C and 1D interchanged. That's what I would do in my system if I were to open 1M with a 5-card major instead of 2M.The boundaries you give are old-fashioned. Clearly today's version of Mindner Karo would have: 10-14, 15-17, and 18-21. Otherwise it must have been a very good system! It's a good example a “true three-segment system”.Nothing is ever new in Bridge. Anything one can think of has already been invented by someone, somewhere.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

First point: Yes I am focusing my analysis on one level opening bids and observing that they cover too large an interval. Nothing wrong with that.Second point: Most systems have opening bids that show two or three bands. Hence the ambiguity about opener's hand and the attempt to differentiate later in the auction. That's why we have bidding problems on some hands. That's why bridge players continuously strive to improve upon existing systems. I can't help but notice that all efforts in the past eighty years have been aimed at improving upon one-segment and two-segment systems.I did not understand your third point. Did you mean “people don't tend to waste two level opening bids to show them”?

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

The three bands are clearly defined in terms of HCP. However, one can use his/her own judgment to upgrade or downgrade a given distributional hand before deciding on the opening bid appropriate for that hand. Or some other form of hand evaluation complementing HCP.The problem you cite is mostly present in one-segment systems where, for instance, you open 1C and don't know whether to rebid 2C or 3C. This should be less of a problem in a three-segment environment.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Granted. What you say is true in general for any system where the initial opening bid is artificial. However, once you are satisfied that you have a functional and successful system then it can be tested in the context of competitive auctions.The fear of opponents' interference does not necessarily invalidate the approach.